Heating from carbon dioxide will increase five-fold over next millennia

Jan 29, 2009
Heating from carbon dioxide will increase five-fold over next millennia

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at the University of Liverpool have found that heating from carbon dioxide will increase five-fold over the next millennia.

Scientists studied the impact that current carbon emissions have on the delicate balance between air and sea carbon exchange. They found that the ocean’s ability to store excessive amounts of carbon dioxide over thousands of years will affect the long-term heating of the planet.

The ocean acts as an enormous carbon sink which naturally absorbs any extra carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. Its ability to store more carbon dioxide than both the atmosphere and land provides long-term storage for the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities.

Scientists at Liverpool, however, have found that if all conventional coal, oil and gas carbon reserves are exhausted, the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will begin to alter the ocean’s natural chemistry and hinder its ability to absorb and exchange the gas.

Professor Ric Williams, from the University’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, explains: “It is accepted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to an increase in heating around the globe. It was, however, unclear as to how the ocean’s ability to store carbon could affect the future overall heating of the earth.

“The excessive amount of carbon in the atmosphere will make the oceans more acidic and hamper the ability of the oceans to absorb further carbon from the atmosphere. The extra carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the overall heating of our planet, making sea levels rise and exacerbating the melting of the Arctic ice caps.

“To prevent a situation like this from happening scientists are working to develop carbon-capture techniques, which aim to remove excess carbon from identifiable sites, such as the atmosphere around fossil fuel plants, and permanently store them away.”

The paper is published in Nature Geosciences.

Provided by University of Liverpool

Explore further: Thousands of intense earthquakes rock Iceland

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study to inform Maryland decision on "fracking"

2 minutes ago

The Maryland Department of Environment and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released on August 18, 2014, a report by the University of Maryland School of Public Health, which assesses the potential ...

LGBT advocacy within companies works

30 minutes ago

Activism in the workplace surrounding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues is often effective at changing a company's social policies – even before government mandates bring about change, ...

Where's the real value in Tesla's patent pledge?

32 minutes ago

With the much-anticipated arrival next month of electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla's Model S to Australian shores, it's a good time to revisit Tesla's pledge to freely share patents. ...

How the Asian monsoon affects methane emissions

33 minutes ago

(Phys.org) —Scientists at the University of Bristol's Cabot Institute have shown how changes in the Asian monsoon affected emissions of methane, a prominent greenhouse gas, from the Tibetan Plateau.

Recommended for you

NASA sees Depression 12-E become Tropical Storm Lowell

18 hours ago

In less than 24 hours after Tropical Depression 12-E was born in the eastern Pacific Ocean it strengthened into Tropical Storm Lowell. NOAA's GOES-West and NASA's Aqua satellite captured infrared images of ...

Why global warming is taking a break

20 hours ago

The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. ETH researchers have now found out why. And they believe that global warming is likely to continue again soon.

User comments : 16

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Velanarris
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2009
CO2 and heat share a logarithmic relationship. Aside from the title, what evidences a five fold increase in heating without a concentration of CO2 increase of 5000% or more?
Arkaleus
3.6 / 5 (17) Jan 29, 2009
Please pay attention to the methods used in these types of stories.

First it is stated:

"They found that the ocean's ability to store excessive amounts of carbon dioxide over thousands of years will affect the long-term heating of the planet."

Then at the end of the article it is stated:

"It was, however, unclear as to how the ocean's ability to store carbon could affect the future overall heating of the earth."

The net effect of these two statements is total nullification of the premise presented by the article.

Please don't be influenced by doublethink.
Arkaleus
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2009
Futhermore:

After the nullification of the thesis presented by the article's conclusion, we are presented with a hyperbolic solution that requires the spending of huge sums of money and unprecedented social sacrifice.

GrayMouser
3 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2009
Arkaleus, wasn't that what happened when they were worried about the next ice age, and polywater, and cold fusion?
barkster
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2009
Scientists at Liverpool, however, have found that if all conventional coal, oil and gas carbon reserves are exhausted...
What?! Exhausted over the next thousand years, or all at once?!
... the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will begin to alter the ocean's natural chemistry...
This makes no sense. Sounds like we need us a stimulus plan.
MikeB
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2009
First, the supposition.
Next, the takeaway.
And last, the punchline.

I can't decide if this is a sales formula, or a joke formula.
OdinsAcolyte
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 30, 2009
MikeB-
It must be a joke. It sure isn't science.
3432682
3 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2009
Political science fiction
GrayMouser
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2009
I can't decide if this is a sales formula, or a joke formula.


It's BOTH! Though the joke is a bad one.
Velanarris
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2009
I love the rampant downrnking from the AGW supporters on the site. More attempting to cover up common sense and pushing a flawed agenda. Priceless.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2009
I've noticed that of late as well. Go figure.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2009
I have no doubt but that many of the so-called climatologists have not gotten past their school-kid science experiments involving a bottle of air and a bottle of CO2 with thermometers, stoppers and heat lamps.

That never was a controlled experiment. It was merely an experiment to show the ability of CO2 to trap heat. But, a bottle of pure CO2 is not the same thing as a bottle filled with air with levels of CO2 at atmospheric levels with a slight increase. There is no calibration of heat sources to ensure that the lamps have the same radiative output, that the glass containers do not have differing anomalies, and that levels of CO2 in the bottles are measured accurately.

And yet, so-called climatologists seem to think that earth is like that bottle in the school-kid science experiment. What on earth were the oceans doing when earth's CO2 levels were in the 1000s ppm long before mankind walked the earth???

It is evident from the fossil record that life was more abundant during those times than now. Over 95% of all species that once existed when the oceans and atmosphere were filled with CO2 at levels so much higher levels in ppm than now are extinct, or so the estimates seem to show. But, when the atmosphere contained 1000s ppm of CO2 that was not so.

If it was not a bad thing way back when, why do these so-called climatologists seem to think it would be a bad thing now???

Too much bad and peurile "science" for my liking these days...
Parsec
not rated yet Jul 14, 2009
The great Eocene warming 55 million years ago had estimated global CO2 levels of about 1700ppm, and global temperatures estimated from 8 to 15 C above what we experience currently. It is also known as one of the time of periodic extinctions, when large numbers of species bit the dirt. Of course all of these CO2 levels, temps, and lifeform diversity are estimated from data appearing in large numbers of core samples around the world.

Not that actual data or science has ever had any effect on the GW deniers, but its interesting information.

This tho is a horrible article. I have to agree that it looks like someone was seriously hungover and had a 10 minute deadline and didn't read the actual article they were basing the article on. It truly is a joke. But this joke does NOT invalid a ton of good science based with solid data.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jul 20, 2009
A great many climate scientists do not use the raw data. They algoreithmically (sp. intentional) smooth or otherwise message the data first.

That is how we got the original (now thoroughly discredited) hockey-stick global-warming graph that the Goreians gave the world, and so forth...

The biggest thing for these so-called scientists is that they must ignore historical events where the temperatures of the climate across the Arctic were at least 4°C to 5°C warmer, and probably more, than today.

To see a summary of the data and historical records discussed concerning this MWP, see H. H. Lamb, "Climate, History and the Modern World," pp. 157-159.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 20, 2009
Ok, the issue with the Eocene event is that the die offs were almost too fast to be caused by a rise in CO2.

In my opinion, and this is opinion only, it is more likely that there was an immense release of methane clathrates which would naturally decay into CO2, CO, water, and hydrogen gas and be very difficult to detect in proxy records due to how quickly it breaks down in the presence of UV at atmospheric levels.

Think about how fast the seafloor turns over due to subduction and thermal venting and it would make sense that a periodic and recurring die off cycle occurs due to this mechanic.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jul 21, 2009
There was another mass die-off (I forgot the timeframe) I read about that involved proliferation of mollusks. They multiplied to the point that they literally starved everything else and raised the level of CO2 in the ocean to the point of killing off a large majority of other organisms.

I'll have to hunt that article down again and make reference to it.

But, I can see how the mechanic you outline could cause a mass-extinction event or two.